_____
Section 3(2) of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Section 3(2) of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1).
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 while declaring Section 497, IPC as unconstitutional, reiterated, “manifest arbitrariness must be something done by Legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle… also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary.”
– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Union of India v. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022].
_____
The word ‘manifest’ confines scope of judicial intervention to those cases where reason is ex-facie absent or compromised, or in other words, such reason is not apparent on face of action or law in question. This necessarily implies, existence of arbitrariness is a matter of plain deduction and not subjective opinion.
– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, West Bengal, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22628-22630 of 2022] decided on 05.02.2026.
_____
It is well settled, manifest arbitrariness is a ground available to this Court to strike down a legislation. It is acknowledged, this power must be exercised with care and restraint so as to maintain a constitutional balance between Legislature and Judiciary. However, where clear and substantive unreasonableness is embedded in a legislative enactment, Court is not only empowered but obliged to intervene.
Arbitrariness, in whatever form it manifests, whether in conferral of uncanalised power, adoption of excessive means, absence of rational nexus, or imposition of consequences wholly disproportionate to stated object, is antithetical to the constitutional guarantee of equality and invites intervention of this Court. A law which departs from these requirements attracts the vice of manifest arbitrariness and is liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14.
– Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Anurag Krishna Sinha v. State of Bihar, [Civil Appeal No. 13581 of 2025] decided on 10.03.2026.
The Last Word 